WalMart has low prices!

[Lakryte]

or does it?

[h=1]Low Wages at a Single Wal-Mart Store Cost Taxpayers about $1 Million Every Year, Says New Committee Staff Report[/h]


and you thought unions were expensive!

From the article:

it also may cost taxpayers about one million dollars in higher usage of public-assistance programs by Wal-Mart employees and their dependents,

So in other words, public-assistance programs cost tax payers money, not Walmart.

 

[Lakryte]

those who work for the government generally don't have to be on public assistance. and since the government pays the benefits and supplements the salaries of many Walmart workers, they are de facto government employees, as well.

as for the department of defense, yes, it should be cut back or should be paid for by wartime marginal rates.

If government paid minimum wage to its employees, and then they got more than that from public assistance, it would have the same effect as if government paid minimum wage plus whatever they would have gotten from public assistance. Its all coming from the same place--the taxpayer. So what we can all agree is true is that government jobs cost the taxpayers money. Far more than Walmart.

 

[Helix]

If government paid minimum wage to its employees, and then they got more than that from public assistance, it would have the same effect as if government paid minimum wage plus whatever they would have gotten from public assistance. Its all coming from the same place--the taxpayer. So what we can all agree is true is that government jobs cost the taxpayers money. Far more than Walmart.

given that we have a consumer spending driven GDP, i'm glad that any entity is paying well enough for consumers to have sufficient discretionary spending ability. if the private sector wants to step up and fill the gap, i'm all for it.

 

[Lakryte]

given that we have a consumer spending driven GDP, i'm glad that any entity is paying well enough for consumers to have sufficient discretionary spending ability. if the private sector wants to step up and fill the gap, i'm all for it.

What is sufficient is relative to the price of products. Walmart offers some of the cheapest prices. So thank God for Walmart for making lower incomes more sufficient.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

What is sufficient is relative to the price of products. Walmart offers some of the cheapest prices. So thank God for Walmart for making lower incomes more sufficient.

I'm not quite sure I would have put it that way... eace

 

[Helix]

What is sufficient is relative to the price of products. Walmart offers some of the cheapest prices. So thank God for Walmart for making lower incomes more sufficient.

i disagree, because the retail price doesn't include the full cost. social safety nets are filling the salary gap.

 

[Lakryte]

i disagree, because the retail price doesn't include the full cost. social safety nets are filling the salary gap.

Walmart pays roughly $7 billion in taxes. In total, apparently its low wages are costing taxpayers 1.75 million. So basically...Walmart's taxes completely fund the social services government offers to its workers--and if not for Walmart, the government would have $7 billion less to fund government jobs, likely laying many of them off.

You still want to argue Walmart is a drain on the taxpayer? Good luck. This thread simply fails in every possible way.

 

[Helix]

Walmart pays roughly $7 billion in taxes. In total, apparently its low wages are costing taxpayers 1.75 million. So basically...Walmart's taxes completely fund the social services government offers to its workers--and if not for Walmart, the government would have $7 billion less to fund government jobs, likely laying many of them off.

You still want to argue Walmart is a drain on the taxpayer? Good luck. This thread simply fails in every possible way.

could you please provide a link which supports your claim that the entire Walmart chain only costs taxpayers 1.75 million dollars in public assistance?

 

[JC Callender]

When did entry level employees in the retail industry ever get paid well enough to raise a family?

 

[gavinfielder]

I think this concern is overblown. If a company offers good products and service at a reasonable price it's more than capable of competing with Wal-Mart. If it goes bust, it probably should.

Competing with Walmart's low prices is impossible for most retailers because they don't have the capital to buy a billion units minimum contract.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Walmart pays roughly $7 billion in taxes. In total, apparently its low wages are costing taxpayers 1.75 million. So basically...Walmart's taxes completely fund the social services government offers to its workers--and if not for Walmart, the government would have $7 billion less to fund government jobs, likely laying many of them off.

You still want to argue Walmart is a drain on the taxpayer? Good luck. This thread simply fails in every possible way.

That's 1.75 million in that particular store.

 

[Grand Mal]

This is just so.much.bull****. WalMart pays the same or better than other retail stores, fast food chains, and others. This is union bull**** to pressure the second-largest employer in the world to unionize. To hell with what employees want. Shove it down their throats whether they like it or not. Gotta get that union census up. Bull****.

They're going, going, gone. Those good-paying jobs that made America prosperous.

"These jobs are going, boys, 'n they ain't coming back
To your home town."
-Bruce Springsteen-

 

[Ahlevah]

Competing with Walmart's low prices is impossible for most retailers because they don't have the capital to buy a billion units minimum contract.

So don't compete on price. Sell better service, convenience, selection, quality, the shopping experience--use your imagination.

 

[winston53660]

Originally Posted by MaggieD
This is just so.much.bull****. WalMart pays the same or better than other retail stores, fast food chains, and others. This is union bull**** to pressure the second-largest employer in the world to unionize. To hell with what employees want. Shove it down their throats whether they like it or not. Gotta get that union census up. Bull****.

well costs are getting externalisd for things like healthcare even a roof over one's head. IMHO it is a failure of the private sector since it doesn't cover these costs and government must step in. Otherwise this work force would be sick and homeless and starving.

 

[soot]

...but it can't solve the problem of large corporation's social costs by underpaying workers?

And you're figuring what?

Six figures, a corporate Lexus RX 400h, and stock options is fair compensation for standing at the door in a blue vest and trucker hat and thanking people for shopping Wal-Mart?

Saying "thank you" isn't a "job". It's what you do after you actually do a "job".

That's the problem that I have with the "fair compensation" argument.

Existing minimum wage laws are already inflating the compensation for some of these jobs into the stratosphere.

$7.25 an hour is way, way more than fair for standing in one place saying "thank you" for a couple hours every day.

It's way more than fair for virtually everything you'd potentially be asked to do if you went to work at Wal-Mart, or any retailer for that matter.

Sweeping the floor, taking stuff out of boxes and putting it on a shelf, collecting shopping carts from the parking lot, scanning UPCs with a little gun and handing someone a receipt, etc, etc, etc...

These people are the modern equivalent of the serfs that used to cut peat out of the bogs.

They should have zero expectation that they'll be compensated any better.

They should thank their lucky stars that they live in the modern age and are paid in cash at all, rather than neck bones and turnip greens.

 

[Fisher]

I find it ironic that the side that likes to bitch about evil corporations and the rich getting richer then turn around and bitch about Walmart's policies that force suppliers to keep their prices, and therefore profits, lower.

 

[cabse5]

Good point. Why, indeed, single out WalMart? They are, after all, only one of many low wage employers. Factor in the cost of importing illegal aliens to harvest crops and make motel beds, add the costs created by other low wage employers, and you have a huge cost to taxpayers that results in cheap prices for some goods and services, but a hidden cost that is astronomical.

If the gov't wasn't so liberal with its entitlements, some of these low wage earners would have 2, 3, and sometimes 4 jobs (if living in expensive areas of the US like NY, or LA, or HI) to make ends meet. Or just go somewhere else.

I still wanna know how much the minimum wage should be raised to accommodate workers in some of those high cost areas of the US.

 

[Dittohead not!]

If the gov't wasn't so liberal with its entitlements, some of these low wage earners would have 2, 3, and sometimes 4 jobs (if living in expensive areas of the US like NY, or LA, or HI) to make ends meet. Or just go somewhere else.

I still wanna know how much the minimum wage should be raised to accommodate workers in some of those high cost areas of the US.

I don't know. It occurs to me that minimum wage isn't the way to put more money into the pockets of average Americans, even the lowest wage earners. Now, if those low wage earners were to go somewhere else as you suggest, who would take their place?

Would it be higher wage earners, doing the same jobs?

 

[soot]

I don't know. It occurs to me that minimum wage isn't the way to put more money into the pockets of average Americans, even the lowest wage earners. Now, if those low wage earners were to go somewhere else as you suggest, who would take their place?

Would it be higher wage earners, doing the same jobs?

Maybe.

Maybe there would be fewer stores, less competition, and higher pay for the remaining employees, who might also have to bring more to the table?

I'm from NJ, so... high population density, high cost of living, high taxes, & etc...

There are litterally huge swaths of NJ where you can't swing a dead cat by the tail without hitting a dozen Targets, Wal-Marts, Bed, Bath & Beyonds, Mega-Ultra-Super shopping malls, a dozen assorted strip malls, and on and on and on...

And they all sell, more or less, the same junk.

I guess it's "convenient" in a sense, but it's also terribly inconvenient in others.

If the labor pool that these things draw from was to dry up to the point where there were only competing Targets and Wal-Marts directly across the street from each at every other stop light, I expect NJ would eventually learn how to cope.

All that surplus labor pool could move to the South or the Midwest where they'd be more in their element (low education, cheese-based diet, penchant for moonshine and meth, marry their sister, that sort of thing).

 

[cabse5]

So kind to the South. And... nah, you aren't prejudiced... or, giving the benefit of doubt, sarcastic.

As to Dittohead's question: maybe they would go where the cost of living wasn't so high.
Hey, if you don't like working 3 jobs, nobody's keeping you from moving to the 'country', or where the cost of living is lower.

 

[Dittohead not!]

So kind to the South. And... nah, you aren't prejudiced... or, giving the benefit of doubt, sarcastic.

As to Dittohead's question: maybe they would go where the cost of living wasn't so high.
Hey, if you don't like working 3 jobs, nobody's keeping you from moving to the 'country', or where the cost of living is lower.

and, if we had some real immigration reform (not amnesty), perhaps there would be farm labor sorts of jobs that they could use to support themselves.

But, no, as long as the employers of cheap labor are able to afford expensive lobbyists, immigration reform is just a pipe dream.

 

[Lakryte]

That's 1.75 million in that particular store.

I know, I reread it. My bad.

 

[head of joaquin]

I find it ironic that the side that likes to bitch about evil corporations and the rich getting richer then turn around and bitch about Walmart's policies that force suppliers to keep their prices, and therefore profits, lower.

By suppliers you mean sweatshop nations where they ban unions and force children to work.

Yeah, I'm going to bitch about that. The fact that you don't speaks volumes.

 

[head of joaquin]

What is sufficient is relative to the price of products. Walmart offers some of the cheapest prices. So thank God for Walmart for making lower incomes more sufficient.

If Walmart were able to have the cheapest prices by dumping all of its trash for free in your back yard, would you look at it differently?

WM is the classic case of externalized costs. Corporations used to do it by dumping their pollution in public water and land, forcing the public to pay rather than the corporations. We stopped that through regulation and law. But now the externalization is more subtle. And that's essentially what WM is doing: getting benefits from its workers but using its market leverage (and political clout) to bust unions, pay low wages, and externalize the costs of paying for the health and food of its underpaid workers, and those unemployed by its unfair competition, on the social safety net.

I say we make Lakryte and other market evangelists pay for those costs, since they think MW is just nifty.

 

[Lakryte]

If Walmart were able to have the cheapest prices by dumping all of its trash for free in your back yard, would you look at it differently?

Of course. That is aggression against my property rights.

WM is the classic case of externalized costs. Corporations used to do it by dumping their pollution in public water and land, forcing the public to pay rather than the corporations. We stopped that through regulation and law. But now the externalization is more subtle. And that's essentially what WM is doing: getting benefits from its workers but using its market leverage (and political clout) to bust unions, pay low wages, and externalize the costs of paying for the health and food of its underpaid workers, and those unemployed by its unfair competition, on the social safety net.

I say we make Lakryte and other market evangelists pay for those costs, since they think MW is just nifty.

I am paying for those costs-through my taxes. And so are you. If you don't like paying for public benefits, then argue against the government providing public benefits. Walmart didn't create those programs. You can't blame it if it takes advantage of them. If workers will only work at Walmart if they get government benefits in addition, then get rid of the government benefits. If Walmart doesn't offer those benefits, the workers will stop working there, so Walmart will have to increase wages. If the workers still work their regardless, then that's fine to, its their choice.